Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

[spinner]

Jeeez...
This topic is still alive.. And, kicking?

What a surprise.

"OU Fet Heater"!
(never mind, just a personal file search identifier...)

Cheers!

[Hoppy]

@Oc
Quote:
"I think you've got MileHigh all wrong. He wouldn't be spending this much time and effort if he wasn't intrigued with the idea. I don't think his goal is to "debunk" the circuit. He's merely doing the best he can to analyze and understand things using accepted knowledge and techniques. So far he's done a pretty good job and he's been willing to share his thoughts with the world. I give him a lot of credit."

I must be getting cranky in my old age or maybe senile, probably both:) I get really tired of this nonsense going on here, they throw components together without understanding or intuition -- without question. Then they test and declare they must be correct because they have followed all the rules they have been taught from a textbook. Did you know Albert Einstein once stated " As punishment for my contempt for authority, Fate has made me an authority myself", the people who succeed have never followed the rules, they create them.
Concerning MH and others the only point I would make it that testing any circuit within the narrow confines of one operating state proves little. It proves the circuit may not produce the desired results under those exact conditions, if anything changes so will the results. It should be obvious that an intimate understanding of every component, it's properties and qualities and how everything relates to one another in every detail is needed. We cannot test every operating state, it is impossible thus the task is nearly impossible. Knowledge, understanding and intuition are required to succeed, the only question I would ask is "why does it work" if in fact it works as claimed, if you do not believe it can work then why bother building or testing--you have tainted the results before you have started.
In any case I fail to see the point of all this testing and speculation without a solid premise to work from, the circuit must embody the premise in every detail.

Regards
AC

http://home.att.net/~quotations/alberteinstein.html

The interpretation of results will always be subject to argument within a forum group having different perspectives and beliefs, irrespective of the quality of test equipment or experimental method / procedure. It can be argued that belief taints results as you suggest but even those experimenters who believe that this circuit is capable of running OU have  so far not openly stated on the fora that their test results indicate this.

The Ainslie test report is lacking in a lot of detail which makes it impossible to replicate accurately. This is a lesson to all experimenters who make overunity claims for their circuits, that full and accurate documentation is extremely important. I personally do not believe that the people who tested Rosemary's circuit were true professionals, as the quality of the documentation is very poor.

Hoppy

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Hi Rose.

I'm not in any sort of thesis competition with you. Doubt I would win if I was

.99

If I win here it's because I'm not unduly constrained by the demands of logic.  LOL

[PaulLowrance]

The Ainslie test report is lacking in a lot of detail which makes it impossible to replicate accurately.

Ah, but you're supposed be "Intuitive," you know.     Did you forget the mylow case? You have to just "feel" for the correct spot. ... That way they can waste more of your valuable research time to delay global free energy that much longer. 

This is a lesson to all experimenters who make overunity claims for their circuits, that full and accurate documentation is extremely important.

Indeed! Intuition is great for doing research, but having people spend valuable time & $ replicate ones claim should be exact, especially in this community where we know the mylows are out there working hard to distract us.

I personally do not believe that the people who tested Rosemary's circuit were true professionals, as the quality of the documentation is very poor.

I agree. All of the signs were there that is a deliberate distraction / fake.



Regards,
Paul

[poynt99]

I agree. All of the signs were there that is a deliberate distraction / fake.

Regards,
Paul

Come on Paul. This was not an intended or deliberate fake. It does not classify as a fake at all. Please get over that notion and give it a break!

.99